Samsung caught faking zoom photos of the Moon
Published: March 14, 2023

Samsung caught faking zoom photos of the Moon
Samsung caught faking zoom photos of the Moon

For years, Samsung "Space Zoom"-capable phones have been known for their ability to take incredibly detailed photos of the Moon. But a recent Reddit post showed in stark terms just how much computational processing the company is doing, and, given the evidence supplied, it feels like we should go ahead and say it: Samsung’s pictures of the Moon are fake. 

But what exactly does "fake" mean in this scenario? It’s a tricky question to answer, and one that’s going to become increasingly important and complex as computational techniques are integrated further into the photographic process. We can say for certain that our understanding of what makes a photo fake will soon change, just as it has in the past to accommodate digital cameras, Photoshop, Instagram filters, and more. But for now, let’s stick with the case of Samsung and the Moon.

The test of Samsung’s phones conducted by Reddit user u/ibreakphotos was ingenious in its simplicity. They created an intentionally blurry photo of the Moon, displayed it on a computer screen, and then photographed this image using a Samsung S23 Ultra. As you can see below, the first image on the screen showed no detail at all, but the resulting picture showed a crisp and clear "photograph" of the Moon. The S23 Ultra added details that simply weren’t present before. There was no upscaling of blurry pixels and no retrieval of seemingly lost data. There was just a new Moon, a fake one. 

This is not a new controversy. People have been asking questions about Samsung’s Moon photography ever since the company unveiled a 100x "Space Zoom" feature in its S20 Ultra in 2020. Some have accused the company of simply copying and pasting prestored textures onto images of the Moon to produce its photographs, but Samsung says the process is more involved than that. 

In 2021, Input Mag published a lengthy feature on the "fake detailed moon photos" taken by the Galaxy S21 Ultra. Samsung told the publication that "no image overlaying or texture effects are applied when taking a photo" but that the company uses AI to detect the Moon’s presence and "then offers a detail enhancing function by reducing blurs and noises." 

The company later offered a bit more information in this blog post (translated from Korean by Google). But the core of the explanation, the description of the vital step that takes us from a photograph of a blurry Moon to a sharp Moon, is dealt with in obfuscatory terms. Samsung simply says it uses a "detail improvement engine function" to "effectively remove noise and maximize the details of the moon to complete a bright and clear picture of the moon" (emphasis added). What does that mean? We simply don’t know. 

The generous interpretation is that Samsung’s process captures blurry details in the original photograph and then upscales them using AI. This is an established technique that has its problems (see: Xerox copiers altering numbers when upscaling fuzzy originals), and I don’t think it would make the resulting photograph fake. But as the Reddit tests show, Samsung’s process is more intrusive than this: it doesn’t just improve the sharpness of blurry details, it creates them. It’s at this point that I think most people would agree the resulting image is, for better or worse, fake.

The difficulty here is that the concept of "fakeness" is a spectrum rather than a binary. (Like all categories we use to divide the world.) For photography, the standard of "realness" is usually defined by the information received by an optical sensor: the light captured when you take the photo. You can then edit this information pretty extensively the way professional photographers tweak RAW images and adjust color, exposure, contrast, and so on, but the end result is not fake. In this particular case, though, the Moon images captured by Samsung’s phone seem less the result of optical data and more the product of a computational process. In other words: it’s a generated image more than a photo.

Some may not agree with this definition, and that’s fine. Drawing this distinction is also going to become much trickier in the future. Ever since smartphone manufacturers started using computational techniques to overcome the limits of smartphones’ small camera sensors, the mix of "optically captured" and "software-generated" data in their output has been shifting. We’re certainly heading to a future where techniques like Samsung’s "detail improvement engine" will become more common and applied more widely. You could train "detail improvement engines" on all sorts of data, like the faces of your family and friends to make sure you never take a bad photo of them, or on famous landmarks to improve your holiday snaps. In time, we’ll probably forget we ever called such images fake.

But for now, Samsung’s Moon imagery sticks out, and I think this is because it’s a particularly convenient application for this sort of computational photography. For a start, Moon photography is visually amenable. The Moon looks more or less the same in every picture taken from Earth (ignoring librations and rotational differences), and while it has detail, it doesn’t have depth. That makes AI enhancements relatively straightforward to add. And secondly: Moon photography is marketing catnip because a) everyone knows phones take bad pictures of the Moon and b) everyone can test the feature for themselves. That’s made it an easy way for Samsung to illustrate the photographic prowess of its phones.

It’s this viral appeal that’s gotten the company into trouble. Without properly explaining the feature, Samsung has allowed many people to confuse its AI-improved images for a physics-defying optical zoom that cannot fit in a smartphone. In turn, that’s made others keen to debunk the images (because the tech world loves a scandal). Samsung doesn’t exactly claim its Moon shots are representative of all its zoom photography, but a consumer would be forgiven for thinking this, so it’s worth emphasizing what’s really going on.

Ultimately, photography is changing, and our understanding of what constitutes a "real photo" will change with it. But for the time being, it seems fair to conclude that Samsung’s Moon photographs are more fake than real. Presumably, in a few years’ time, this may no longer hold. Samsung did not immediately respond to The Verge’s request for comment, but we’ll update this piece if they get back to us. In the meantime, if you’d like to take an unadulterated photo of the Moon using your Samsung device, just turn off the "Scene Optimizer" feature and get ready to snap a picture of a blurry circle in the sky. 

Source: Re-posted and Summarized from JAMES VINCENT and JON PORTER at the verge.


Customer Reviews:

We all have been VERY pleased with Adrian's vigila
We all have been VERY pleased with Adrian's vigilance in monitoring the website and his quick and successful repairs. Evan was also very helpful in solving all of my hacking problems. So in all aspects of the Computer Geeks we are very glad we are working with you.
Kenneth Bruscia PhD
Published:
Kenneth Bruscia PhD
[email protected]
FIVE STARS + It's true, this is the place to go fo
FIVE STARS + It's true, this is the place to go for your web site needs. In my case, Justin fixed my problem immediately. It's such a comfort to know that I can reply on these people for any and all my web needs. You will not find a better team anywhere.
Paul Adler
Published:
Paul Adler
[email protected]
We reached out to Rich and his team at Computer Ge
We reached out to Rich and his team at Computer Geek in July 2021. We were in desperate need of help because our former website design agency left us hanging with major website issues that needed immediate attention. Rich and his team were extremely helpful and quick to come to our rescue! They have helped us with numerous projects that have helped our SEO. Our sales have increased 30% since coming to Computer Geek. We've been working with them for about nine months now and are very pleased with their response time and helpful manner. Rich has proven himself to be trustworthy and dependable. We feel valued as a customer and look forward to continuing a relationship with Computer Geek.
Leigh Hutchens
Published:
Leigh Hutchens
[email protected]
Just to say thank you for all the hard work. I can
Just to say thank you for all the hard work. I can't express enough how great it's been to send projects and they get done. Beyond that, your ability to work with three different folks in a personable way really has been a game changer for us. The improvements to our business because of your hard work have been significant.
Curtis Williams
Published:
Curtis Williams
[email protected]
I would certainly like to recommend that anyone pu
I would certainly like to recommend that anyone pursing maintenance for a website to contact The Computer Geek. I have been using another company to do some maintenance on my site with moderate success. There were issues that were evidently beyond what could be handled by them. However, the professionals at The Computer Geek had them addressed and rectified in no time at all. The Computer Geek approached all of my requests focusing on my goals and the needed performance. Then, once versed, presented me with a very reasonable price. Once the projects were in motion, I found that the tasks were achieved before I expected, with professional results. Also, in one instance where The Computer Geeks brought an issue to my attention that I would have likely overlooked. This was accompanied by a recommendation on how to solve the issue. Overall The Computer Geeks exceeded my expectations!
David Pappas
Published:
David Pappas
[email protected]
I have a important website dedicated to the local
I have a important website dedicated to the local high school going back nearly 100 years. It was suddenly infected with a virus. Rich at Computer Geek fixed it within an hour. I cannot recommend him enough. I hope it's not for a long time, but the next time I need help, Rich is who I'm gonna call.
Eric Williams
Published:
Eric Williams
[email protected]
WOW! I have been wracking my brain for the past 30
WOW! I have been wracking my brain for the past 30 days trying to figure out who was hosting my company's website the domain owner, etc. Yesterday, when I googled for help and I clicked on the link to computer-geek.net and picked up the phone and called them. Rich answered and from there it was smooth sailing!
Rhonda Harding
Published:
Rhonda Harding
[email protected]
A note to let you know how much I appreciate your
A note to let you know how much I appreciate your team's work. Justin is on top of quickly solving any issues, making changes, reliable. Finding you was one of the luckiest days of my 74 years. I'd be honored if you'd add me to your list of references. And please stay healthy and in business. I got enough headaches from other folks.
Dan Cutrer
Published:
Dan Cutrer
[email protected]
We discovered an issue with our Oscommerce cart pr
We discovered an issue with our Oscommerce cart processing images. It is about 14 years old and heavily modified. Looking on google for some expert help I found Rich and reached out to him. We received a response the same day. The next day his team was working on our issue and was able to solve it within a few hours. Price was reasonable and we are very appreciative to find a competent and professional oscommerce expert to help successfully troubleshoot our issue.
Phillip Sirota
Published:
Phillip Sirota
[email protected]
I'm very new to the whole idea of having a website
I'm very new to the whole idea of having a website / blog. I used Bluehost.com and WordPress.org to create Thepredatorhunter.com and then managed to wreck it. On a Sunday morning I opened chat box with Rich and within a few hours everything was fantastic! This isn't just a company for big biz, if your new and small, The Computer Geek can help you out. In trouble? Stop fretting and start typing in the chat box. You will be glad you did!
Dennis Gilmore
Published:
Dennis Gilmore
[email protected]
[Read More Testimonials Here]

Latest Website Related Articles

The Boring Company Vegas Loop to double in size

Published: March 22, 2023
The Boring Company (TBC) submitted applications to double the size of the Vegas Loop to 65 miles of tunnels with 69 stations. The proposed 65-mile network of tunnels would run through the Las Vegas strip and central Las Vegas. A map of the propose...[Read More]

 

Google Chrome could soon banish one of our biggest browser frustrations

Published: March 22, 2023
Google Chrome could soon banish one of our biggest browser frustrations. Google’s Chrome browser might soon offer a really smart feature for those who make use of web extensions, namely the ability to turn off all of those add-ons for any gi...[Read More]

 


Here are some links to related topics:
 wp security,   geotab wizard,   oscommerce programming,   ideahost hacked,   bluehost account hacked,   wordpress hacked,  


Auto Helpers: Auto Helpers
Site Secured By The Website Guardian